openai

Anthropic has moved ahead of OpenAI in its race to go public. This is very bad news for Sam Altman

by

Anthropic confirmed on Monday which has formally registered its application for its long-awaited IPO. The operation may become the largest in the history of its type, and reminds us of another singular moment. In August 1995, Netscape went public and marked the beginning of the era of the Internet and dotcom fever. That turned out to be a bubble, but “good”. The question is if it will be repeated what happened then. The original Netscape moment. When Netscape went public, the company had only been on the market for 16 months and had not made a profit in all that time. It didn’t matter. The shares went on the market on August 9, 1995 with an initial price of $28. On its first day of trading, the value skyrocketed quicklyreaching a high of $75 before closing at $58.25. In December of that year it would reach its maximum value, $171 per share. The rest, as they say, it’s history. Netscape’s IPO sent the Nasdaq technology index soaring… until the dot-com bubble hit in 2000. Source: Reuters. Anthropic could break all records. Anthropic’s spectacular growth in recent months has made the company in the pretty girl of the AI ​​sector. The recent investment round has raised its valuation to $965 billionan incredible figure considering that the company is barely five years old. It has also overtaken OpenAI, whose valuation It is currently around $850 billion.. Both were moving to go public this year, but Anthropic has gone ahead again, something that at first glance seems like another victory against its main rival. What Netscape taught us. The explosion of Netscape in 1995 gave rise to fierce competition: companies promising gold and moro did not stop appearing, and the dotcom bubble grew. Too many companies managed to attract investment without a clear business plan and the situation ended up leading to the bursting of the bubble. A few companies survived and managed to become the great giants of today’s technology. good bubbles. That bubble could be described as “good” because although many companies failed, those that remained and those that were created later ended up leading this revolution called the internet. For many, the AI ​​bubble exists, but it is similar to the dotcom bubble in that: many companies could disappear if it bursts, but the final result, they say, will be positive for the evolution of our planet. But Anthropic is very different from Netscape. Although these IPOs present certain analogies, the situation of these companies is very different. Netscape suffered greatly to monetize its software and would end up in the hands of AOL in 1999 when its stage was closing. Anthropic has shown that its approach to businesses works, and in fact this past quarter it surprised by achieving profits (with small print) when everyone expected losses. And still, total uncertainty. Anthropic’s projection—like that of OpenAI—is spectacular on paper, but we are talking about companies that in recent years have not stopped burning money to achieve the most powerful models on the market. All technology companies have been devoured by the AI ​​fever, but today the only ones who win (a lot) money are those that provide components for AI infrastructure. Milestone. The bet is that this infrastructure will be necessary because we will all use AI models on a massive scale, but it is not at all clear that this expectation will be met. It may not, but Anthropic’s IPO will certainly mark a milestone in the dizzying growth of this segment. And victory for Amodei. This year we will likely see three historic IPOs. SpaceX seems to be the first in breaking records, but both Anthropic and OpenAI follow in their footsteps. That the company led by Dario Amodei has formally confirmed its preparation for that exit is a symbolic victory against its great rival, Sam Altman, who is also planning the IPO of OpenAI. In recent months Anthropic has managed to turn the tables, and has gone from being the pursuer to the leader of a race that certainly is not over yet. Image | Wikimedia In Xataka | Anthropic is one step away from being worth as much as Samsung. And what the market is buying is not Claude

Anthropic just surpassed OpenAI as the world’s most valuable AI startup

by

Anthropic is no longer the eternal second fiddle. The company that was always in the shadow of OpenAI has become the main protagonist of this segment in recent months. Its growth is so spectacular that in its latest round of financing it has managed to surpass OpenAI’s valuation. It is an extraordinary milestone, especially for one reason: both hope to go public before the end of the year, and here Anthropic has the upper hand (again). Overtaking on the right. The company founded by the Amodei brothers has raised a colossal financing round of 65 billion dollarsand with it Anthropic’s valuation becomes 965,000 million post money. It is a financial achievement that suddenly destroys OpenAI’s valuation, which is currently stuck at $730 billion. This latest round comes just three months after Anthropic will raise 30,000 million of dollars, cccadadasdsas in an agreement that placed its valuation at 350,000 million dollars. The growth is simply amazing. Anthropic is the coolest company. The valuation reflects a compelling reality: Anthropic is (much) more fashionable than OpenAI. The company has taken great advantage of recent controversies to increase its popularity, and its brand image has been greatly reinforced because it is the company that everyone is talking about. What happened to the Pentagon first and what has happened with the encyclical Magnificent Humanitas of the Pope then they show it. And the one with the best models (seems) to have. OpenAI seemed to be ahead in the AI ​​race with models leading the way. That changed with the arrival of Claude Code and Claude Opus 4.5. Since then, Anthropic’s advances have been striking, and although the differences are small, the popular perception is that Claude Opus is now the model that leads in performance. This has just been confirmed in benchmarks with the recent release of Claude Opus 4.8but above all with Claude Mythos Previewthe model that has been put the world of cybersecurity upside down. They already make money. A few days ago, surprising news leaked: Anthropic could close the second quarter of the year with an operating profit of 559 million dollars. He would make money when the rest of his rivals lose a lot. The projected annual turnover has managed to exceed $47 billion this month, five times more than the amount estimated at the beginning of the year. The reason: the overwhelming success of Anthropic models in companies. That’s where the money isand the company has known how to 1) detect and 2) take advantage of it before anyone else. Memory manufacturers enter the round. The financing round is led by venture capital firms such as Greenoaks, Sequoia, Altimeter and Dragoneer, but this time there are other protagonists. These are the semiconductor firms Samsung, Micron and SK Hynixwho have also participated and who have taken advantage of their current privileged position to also bet on the success of Anthropic. It’s a win-win: they bet on the current winning horse, and Anthropic manages to strengthen relationships with the companies that right now they control one of the big bottlenecks of the AI ​​industry: memory chips. The IPO is imminent. This surprise meteoric intensifies the pressure on OpenAI and further encourages (if that was possible) that other race, which is the IPO of both these two companies and SpaceX. We are in a year that will be remembered for three stratospheric IPOs, but these latest achievements by Anthropic have made the company led by Dario Amodei now the main protagonist in the technology segment. Image | Fortune Brainstorm Tech In Xataka | The surprise of the new Claude Opus 4.8 is not that it is (a little) better. The surprise is the “I only know that I know nothing”

As Silicon Valley perpetuates its workday, the four-day work week has found an unexpected ally: OpenAI

by

While in the mecca of the technology industry celebrates the “996” model (from nine in the morning to nine at night, six days a week) as a mantra to not to be left behind In the AI ​​race, the creator of ChatGPT stands out by proposing just the opposite: reducing working hours with a four day work week. OpenAI just published your report ‘Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to Keep People First‘. In it, the company suggests that AI can be the perfect excuse for us to work fewer hours a week without losing a cent of our salary. The idea is not just an academic conjecture, but proposes a package of labor policies designed for the age of AI. Four-day days without touching the salary. One of the most surprising sections of the report refers to “efficiency dividends.” With them, OpenAI proposes that governments, companies and unions promote pilot tests of 32-hour days or four days of work per week without salary reduction, as has been established tested successfully in different countries around the world. The stated objective is to maintain the same levels of production and service, taking advantage of the automation options provided by AI and then making the leap to a model of permanent reduced working hours or cumulative vacation days for employees. The striking thing about the proposal is not its content itself, something that has already been implemented with success in some companiesthe key is who proposes the change. Instead of a union or a workplace welfare study, the idea comes from the company itself that is accelerating the transformation of the labor market around the world. Not just reduction in working hours: better pensions and care. OpenAI presents this measure as a way to redistribute part of the productivity benefits extra generated by AI, so that profits are not concentrated only in the shareholders or in the big technology companies, but that the entire population participates in this advance. The four-day week is just one of the most striking measures, but the report goes much further. OpenAI suggests that companies that profit from AI also increase their contributions to their employees’ pension plans (not just those of their managers as a bonus), and that they cover more of their employees’ healthcare expenses. He also proposes what he calls “benefit bonuses“, direct bonuses linked to improved productivity and subsidies for the care of minors and the elderly. If robots work, let them quote. The document recognizes that AI automation can lead to the massive displacement of jobs and further concentrate wealth in a very small number of large companies. That is why it calls for more robust social protection networks. Curiously, OpenAI’s postulate coincides with the statements made a few weeks ago did Bill Gatesarguing that if AI was to reduce dependence on human labor, taxation should shift from wages and contributions to capital gains and corporate profits. The document introduces the idea of ​​”taxes on automated work”, linked to jobs previously done by people who would be replaced by robots. In Xataka | The war in Iran has achieved something that no government has achieved: giving reasons to bring back teleworking Image | Unsplash (Nathan Kuczmarski)

The sector already invoices 80,000 million a year, but OpenAI and Anthropic take 89% of the income

by

Everyone wants to get a piece of the AI ​​pie, but the reality is that the pie today belongs to two companies: OpenAI and Anthropic. This confirms it an analysis from The Information in which the income of the 34 most relevant companies in the market today has been analyzed. The accounts are beginning to be striking, but so is the reality of this new technological duopoly. The sector doubles income as a whole. According to the data collected by this means, these 34 companies have an annualized income of 80,000 million dollars, about 6,600 million dollars per month. That represents 112% more than six months ago, which means that these companies have grown more than double in that period of time. The most relevant fact is not in fact that. But in reality Anthropic and OpenAI are the ones thatthey win. That figure would be promising if it weren’t for the other major conclusion of the study: 89% of that income goes to just two companies: Anthropic and OpenAI. The other 32 share “the crumbs”, because almost 9 out of every 10 dollars in income goes to the accounts of these two new technological giants. This is generative AI. The analysis published by The Information includes the 34 main companies in the generative AI sector. Therefore, hyperscalers (Amazon, Microsoft, Google) or other large technology companies that participate in other areas of the industry. The report is therefore especially striking when it comes to verifying how much these companies are earning, and the reality is clear: they have grown very, very quickly. But (I). We have two big buts. The first: although both Anthropic and OpenAI are growing significantly in revenue, it must be taken into account that not all of them are for these companies. Anthropic has to give up some of that revenue to both Amazon and Google because they resell their services. OpenAI must also share 20% of its revenue with Microsoft until 2030, which means that this year it will have to pay about $6 billion. Companies have turned to AI, and the big winners are both OpenAI and Anthropic, which has accelerated exceptionally in 2026. Source: VisualCapitalist. But (II). The second but is even more important, and is that of a reality that continues to be overwhelming: these companies continue to spend much more money than they earn. OpenAI itself has estimated an expense of 600 billion dollars in computing capacity until 2030, and only in 2026 are their losses expected to triple to 14 billion dollars. It doesn’t matter if you win a lot: you keep losing even more. With Anthropic there is no recent spending estimate data, but the company itself has a projection of a cash flow of $17 billion in 2028. That is not the same as profits but it is a clear indication of when it expects to stop losing money. The important thing here is that this is an estimate. It could be fulfilled, but it could also not be fulfilled. The little ones grow. Three of the best-known AI startups have crossed the barrier of 500 million annual revenues since December and they now join Cursor, which achieved it last summer. These are Perplexity, ElevenLabs and Cognition, which demonstrate that they are already capturing part of a market that does not stop growing… and spending. But the big ones don’t stop distancing themselves. Although all of these startups already have an important dimension, Anthropic and OpenAI are at another level. Both have grown exceptionally and in recent times we have seen the takeover from Anthropic to OpenAI, which already has managed to achieve in market valuation. The creators of Claude were valued at 380 billion in February, but the success of Claude Code and his models in business environments has caused its price to skyrocket. The company plans to raise tens of billions of dollars this summer to reach a valuation of nearly a billion dollars. Stock market IPOs in sight. Both OpenAI and Anthropic are preparing their respective IPOs, and in both cases they hope to lift each about 60 billion dollars from investors to become companies right off the bat with market capitalizations that could be around a trillion dollars. It is an extraordinary figure, especially considering that at this time only 13 companies around the world they exceed that figure. In Xataka | Google and Amazon Just Invested Billions in Anthropic: It’s the Biggest Clue About Who’s Winning in AI

The trial against Sam Altman seemed like a duel between two millionaires. It has ended up uncovering the ins and outs of OpenAI

by

Three weeks of testimonies, 78 messages between Sam Altman and Mira Murati during the night they were going to kill him as CEOemails where Greg Brockman wrote in his personal diary how nice it would be to “earn billions” and Satya Nadella describing the OpenAI board as ““amateur city”. This Thursday the final arguments of the Musk vs. Altman trial were held in a federal court in Oakland. The lawsuit asked for 150,000 million in damages and the dismissal of Altman. What has been left for the public has not so much to do with the verdict. Why is it important. OpenAI is, despite its name, one of the most secretive companies in Silicon Valley. Its internal functioning, until now, was known through highly selected profiles in The New Yorker or specific leaks. The trial has forced the company to publish emails, text messages, personal diaries and depositions that depict an organization very different from the one that sells its official communication. A company plagued by power struggles, mutual suspicions between founders and a board that in 2023 could not explain why it fired its own CEO. behind the scenes. The most illuminating episode occurred not on the stand, but in a chain of late-night messages between Altman and Murati during “The Blip“, the weekend of November 2023 in which the board removed the CEO. At 2:30 a.m. Monday morning, Altman was asking his then-CTO if things were going well or badly. “This is going in a very bad direction. Sam, this is very serious,” Murati responded. Minutes later, Altman offered to leave to avoid lawsuits. Murati replied that the council already had a replacement: “uncle random of Twitch”, in reference to Emmett Shear. That same day, Murati signed the first of the letters from employees asking for Altman’s return. The contrast. What Murati’s deposition leaked is that she herself had fed the board with complaints about Altman before the firing. Helen Toner, a former councillor, testified that Murati and co-founder Ilya Sutskever had conveyed to the council a pattern of behavior about Altman’s honesty. Sutskever wrote a 52-page memorandum. On the stand, Sutskever himself confirmed writing to the board that Altman “demonstrates a consistent pattern of lying, undermining his executives, and pitting them against each other.” Murati, in his deposition, maintained his criticisms but framed them as “purely managerial.” Go deeper. The term that the Microsoft leadership used to describe what they saw in those days was said by Satya Nadella from the stand: ‘amateur city. The CEO of Microsoft, the main investor in OpenAI with more than 13 billion contributed, said that he never received a concrete explanation of why Altman was fired. “I was very concerned that employees would leave en masse,” he said. Nadella offered Altman a position at Microsoft with an open invitation to the entire OpenAI team. Altman admitted at trial that he was on the verge of accepting: “I would have made a lot of money and had a much easier life at Microsoft.” He ended up coming back to OpenAI with some new advice. The outgoing board’s accusation was that Altman “had not been consistently candid” with them. The money trail. The trial has also exposed Altman’s web of personal interests in companies that do business with OpenAI. While under interrogation, Altman acknowledged stakes worth more than $2 billion in companies such as Helion Energy, Cerebras –just went public–, Reddit or Stripe. His third of Helion (from which he has just left as president) is valued at 1,650 million. OpenAI has signed a framework agreement with Helion for future energy supplies. Forbes has recalculated his assets at more than 4,000 million after these revelations. Brockman, who according to Musk “did not invest a cent”, now appears with a stake valued at 30 billion. Yes, but. None of this changes the legal background. The jury must decide on two specific civil claims: breach of fiduciary trust and unjust enrichment. Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, has tried to turn this into a trial about Altman’s credibility. In his closing arguments he put an unflattering photo of the CEO on screen and asked the jury to imagine a bridge over a ravine “built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth.” And now what. OpenAI has been preparing for a long time an IPO that could value it at close to a billion dollars. Musk, meanwhile, flew to China with Trump despite the judicial warning that he could be called to testify again. Regardless of the ruling, the reputational damage has already been done. The narrative that OpenAI has tried to project for years (that of being an idealistic laboratory guided by the mission of benefiting humanity) now coexists with another version documented in a judicial process: that of a company where the co-founder sends messages to the CEO at two in the morning to tell him that it is finished and a few hours later she signs the letter asking for her return. A company where the president wrote in his diary that “it would be nice to earn billions.” And where the reference investor, seeing the chaos from the outside, called ‘amateur city to its governing bodies. The jury’s verdict will come next week. What can no longer be archived are the documents. In Xataka | There is a thing called “Ornn price index”, it is out of control and it is bad news for everyone Featured image | Xataka

OpenAI employees who sold their shares

by

In October of last year, OpenAI closed a secondary share sale which raised its valuation to 500,000 million dollars (Today it is already worth 852,000 million). This allowed employees to sell their shares, becoming multimillionaires even before the IPO. 6.6 billion. It is the total amount of the operation in which more than 600 employees, both current and former employees, benefited. In previous similar operations, OpenAI limited the maximum per person to 10 million, but in this case, due to high demand from investors, they decided to triple it to 30 million. Of all of them, 75 employees reached the maximum number, becoming multimillionaires in one fell swoop. The AI ​​winners. Uncertainty about the future profitability of AI continues to loom large, but that is not affecting workers in the most important AI laboratories. The case of the secondary sale of OpenAI is just one example of how AI engineers have become the biggest winners of this boom. Last summer, Meta offered up to $100 million to competing engineers and NVIDIA paid 900 million by an employee. Tender offers. The usual thing when you started to work in a startup is that you received a low salary and a lot of shares, but you had to wait for the IPO to be able to make cash. This made many employees rich only on paper, but without real liquidity. A tender offer allows employees to get paid much sooner, allowing them to sell stakes to private investors. They count in the Wall Street Journal That this mechanism, which was previously a one-time thing, has become a central piece in Silicon Valley achieves a double effect: in addition to turning employees into millionaires in advance and thus retaining them to stay in the company, it helps to consolidate stratospheric valuations, causing each new operation to set a higher reference price for OpenAI shares. The local impact. The rain of millions had an almost immediate consequence on the real estate market in San Franciscowhich is seeing prices rise even more. In February of this year the rents had increased by 14% compared to the same period in 2025 and the purchase prices of apartments and single-family homes rose by 12 and 23% respectively. At the same time, the sale of homes valued above $5 million has increased by 220%. The AI ​​gap. In the end, the AI ​​boom is not only redefining which companies rule Silicon Valley (and the world), but also who can afford to live there. The combination of exorbitant valuations, tender offers billionaires and a stressed real estate market is turning AI engineers into a new urban aristocracy that, in practice, is redefining what it means to have a “good salary.” The income that a few years ago guaranteed access to the best neighborhoods is no longer enough today. Image | Xataka with Gemini In Xataka | Companies are turning their workers who know how to use AI into “stars”: the new labor gap

All the founders of OpenAI have become billionaires with ChatGPT. Everyone except Sam Altman, who has no shares

by

Sam Altman is the most recognizable face of the AI ​​industry in the world. He directs OpenAI, the company that created ChatGPT and is today valued at 852,000 million of dollars. However, a leaked document during the ongoing trial between Altman and Elon Musk Due to the change in status from an NGO to a for-profit entity, it has revealed who the true investors of OpenAI are and how much their participation in the company amounts to. In the box next to his name, only three letters appear: TBD, which in English means “to be determined.” The man who leads the biggest technological revolution in recent years does not own a single share of his own company. Sam Altman works for the love of art. OpenAI was born in 2015 as non-profit organization with an ambitious mission: to develop AI safely and for the good of humanity. That Altman did not take stock then made some sense since his role was presented as the neutral guardian, the leader whose decisions were not tainted by money. A noble mission, without a doubt. But that It is not the scenario in 2026. In 2019, OpenAI’s charity structure began to become too small to compete in the AI ​​race. OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary under the so-called “capped-profit” model, in which investors they could make profits limited. That opened the door for capital and also for executives and co-founders to secure huge stakes in OpenAI. Altman’s name, paradoxically, remained blank. Those who did get rich, and a lot. As and how I collected Forbes, Greg Brockman, co-founder and former president of OpenAI, admitted during the trial that he owns a stake worth about $30 billion for which he paid nothing. Ilya Sutskever, former scientific director, has a participation between 30,000 and 35,000 million dollars. Figures very far from the annual compensation of $76,001 that its CEO receives, according to the tax form from OpenAI. The other major beneficiary is the Sound Ventures fund, linked to actor Ashton Kutcherinvested 30 million dollars in an early phase and that bet is now worth 1.3 billion, a return of 43 times the investment. In total, current and former employees control about $165 billion in company shares. The distribution among the greats. The block of corporate investors formed by Microsoft, SoftBank, Amazon and NVIDIA, together control 46.58% of OpenAI, with a stake valued at $396.9 billion against a combined investment of $122.7 billion. Microsoft leads that group with 26.79% of the company, a position valued at $228.3 billion built from an initial investment of 13,000 million. SoftBank occupies second place with 11.66% of OpenAI, valued at 99.3 billion compared to an initial payment of 64.6 billion, which represents a profitability of 1.5 times. amazon It has 4.66% of the company, valued at 39.7 billion dollars with an investment of 15 billion and a profitability of 2.6 times. At the top of the table is the OpenAI Foundation, the original non-profit entity, with 25.80% of the company and a stake valued at $219.8 billion which, having been formed with contributions without financial compensation, technically has an infinite return. Here may lie the key to the mystery of Altman’s retribution. A calculated move. The most widespread theory is that Altman and the board of directors, which he has firmly controlled since surviving the 2023 impeachment attempt, They are simply biding their time. Once the dispute with Musk concludes, the OpenAI board is likely to retroactively determine that Altman deserves participation commensurate with his responsibility. It is likely that, as is the case with other CEOs, This remuneration is linked to milestones like taking the company public with a valuation of more than a billion dollars. Perhaps this retribution will arise from that reserved fund now controlled by the OpenAI Foundation. Meanwhile, Altman is not exactly in trouble and your personal assets exceeds 2 billion dollars thanks to investments in companies that, curiously, are very well positioned to benefit from the growth of OpenAI. Without being a shareholder in his own company, he has built a personal business ecosystem that prospers directly thanks to his success. In Xataka | “The problem is Sam Altman”: more and more voices within the AI ​​industry are beginning to question the CEO of OpenAI Image | Flikr (TechCrunch)

OpenAI already knows which device will replace our smartphone in the age of AI. It will be another smartphone, according to Kuo

by

He doesn’t always get it right, but Ming-Chi-Kuo just made a particularly striking statement. According to your dataOpenAI is preparing its first “mobile AI agent”, a smartphone that will be quite different from the current ones not so much in form as in substance. If its predictions come true, we could be facing a device that will shake the pillars of the current mobile segment. Hello, “OpenAI phone”. Kuo states that mass production of this smartphone designed by OpenAI will begin in the first half of 2027. He also tells us that the SoC that will govern this device will be a customized version of the future MediaTek Dimensity 9600 manufactured with TSMC’s N2P process and that will theoretically arrive in the second half of the year. The mobile that wants to see the world. This chip will have some special features, such as an ISP (Integrated Signal Processor) with an HDR system that allows optimizing the visual perception of the world. It is logical: the mobile wants to become an integral part of our interaction with the world, and that visual capacity is critical. Two NPUs better than one. It will also have a dual NPU architecture to increase its AI computing capacity. It will theoretically integrate LPDDR6 memory and will have UFS 5.0 to avoid memory bottlenecks. If all goes well, Kuo says, between 2027 and 2028 30 million units will be distributed. Not anything else, but the plan seems incredibly ambitious. Paradigm shift. This type of device, Kuo points outwill doom the UI as we know it. The concept of navigating a patchwork of icons to perform independent tasks will be obsolete. The concept proposed by OpenAI understands that the user does not want to use an “application stack”, but rather achieve objectives through a centralized agent. This implies a radical redesign of the smartphone in which the screen stops being a menu of options and becomes a kind of mirror of what the user wants, of their “intentions.” We went from a manual interaction to a proactive inference, because the AI ​​is responsible for detecting what needs to be done to complete the action that the user needs. Without touching the screen. Task resolution rules over navigation. OpenAI being Apple. To achieve this OpenAI needs to control everything on this device, so similar to what happens with Apple and its iPhone. For an AI agent to function seamlessly, it needs access to sensors and device status in real time, something that current operating systems restrict by design. OpenAI wants to control both the hardware and the software to capture all the relevant information at all times. The technical barrier is not the AI ​​model, but that total control that also requires perfect management of memory and energy consumption. Apple, by the way, is in that same battle, although in a different way. The energy challenge. It seems logical to think that this device bases a good part of its capacity on AI models in the cloud, but also that it will have the ability to execute some tasks thanks to small local models. Hence having two NPUs that allow at least certain tasks to be executed on the mobile itself. That will be crucial precisely regarding energy consumptionbecause this AI that automates tasks by chaining them consumes much more computing than the usual interaction with an app today. App Store in danger of extinction. There is a particularly striking idea here. The app store economics faces existential disruption. The current model relies on friction: you need to open a specific app for each task, which justifies the 30% “tax” and the walled garden. If an AI agent can book a flight or order food by directly accessing the background APIs, the icon on the home screen disappears. The “app” stops being a destination and becomes an invisible tool. This not only threatens Apple’s revenue, but redefines mobile development towards an “API-first” ecosystem, where the graphical interface is irrelevant and competition is decided by agent efficiency, not UI design. Goodbye, privacy? And in this context, privacy could once again become the price of that “it’s so convenient to use a device like this” of these future mobiles. For an AI agent to be useful and function truly autonomously, it needs to know everything or almost everything about us. Our location, health, messages and of course the screen content at all times, among other things. The opacity of proprietary models will mean that we will never know what data is leaked to the cloud to “improve the service”, turning privacy into a variable controlled (once again) by the manufacturer. In Xataka | Microsoft has insisted on making Windows “agent.” His users have reminded him that they had not asked for it

Anthropic and OpenAI know that where AI is making money is in companies. They have found a way to squeeze that strategy

by

We end users no longer matter much to the AI ​​giants. These companies are confirming that income is currently in the professional world, and they are already making moves to conquer that segment. And if they have to do it company by company, so be it, because now OpenAI and Anthropic are a little less AI companies and a little more consulting. AI is more business than ever. Anthropic and OpenAI have understood that the real business of AI is not currently in individual $20 subscriptions, but in integrating their AI models into all types of corporations. Both companies have almost simultaneously launched alliances with other companies to provide consulting services. The objective is simple: to stop being external web tools to become the “operating system” of thousands of businesses through these exclusive sales channels. Anthropic on the one hand… The company led by Dario Amodei has formed a joint venture with Blackstone, Goldman Sachs and Hellman & Friedman valued at $1.5 billion. This new firm will act as a consultancy bringing Claude directly into the operating environments of mid-sized businesses, from mid-sized banks to local manufacturers to healthcare systems. These companies have committed to provide $300 million each for AI engineers to work closely with these clients to integrate custom solutions. …and OpenAI on the other. In turn, Sam Altman’s company has not been slow to replicate that initiative with the creation of the so-called The Development Company, an entity valued at about 10,000 million dollars. It is backed by funds such as TPG, Bain Capital and SoftBank. Theoretically, OpenAI has already raised $4 billion to accelerate the adoption of its AI models in more than 2,000 companies that are already part of those investors’ portfolios. The initiative is led by Brad Lightcap, until now COO of the company, and who wants to make the GPT family models an integral part of the operations of all types of companies. Engineers on the line of fire. To promote these strategies, both companies are adopting the so-called ‘Forward Deployed Engineer’ (FDE) model, a deployment system that was already popularized by Palantir and that consulting firms traditionally use. Instead of simply selling an API, Anthropic and OpenAI will send their engineers to work with doctors, financial analysts, or IT staff so that their AI models can be seamlessly integrated into those professionals’ real-world workflows. Going public as a goal. In recent months we seem to be experiencing a race against the clock towards the IPO in both cases. With absolutely stratospheric valuations (OpenAI 852 billionAnthropic hanging around 900,000 million), the pressure to justify these figures to the public market is immense. The integration of programming tools such as Claude Code has been a clear driver of recent growth, but the real gold mine is in the automation of processes in sectors such as health or finance. If you are joint ventures fail to scale quickly, the valuation bubble could deflate before those IPOs. Conflicts of interest. When a venture capital fund invests in a technology provider and simultaneously pressures its portfolio companies to adopt that same technology, competition ceases to exist. Many companies will not have much real choice based on product quality. What is reinforced here It is that “circular economy” in which innovation is not chosenbut is imposed by financial and business interests. The customer does not buy because he needs the tool, but because his own financial owner has a stake in whoever supplies that tool. But wouldn’t AI automate everything? The dependence on the FDE model is paradoxical. Theory tells us that software must be infinitely replicable at zero marginal cost. However, these alliances show that AI is still not smart enough to operate without direct human supervision. We need someone to teach us how to use it well, the companies say, and both OpenAI and Anthropic are going to take advantage of that need even if what we really have is luxury personalized consulting. For now, AI will be more part of the services offered by a consulting firm than a truly autonomous “plug and play” tool. New Job: Deployment Engineer. Now Anthropic and OpenAI will not only be AI companies: they will also be consultancies in need of manpower. That also serves as an example that although AI theoretically will eliminate jobswill also create new ones. Here we face a growing demand for “deployment engineers” —OpenAI already requests them—, professionals who are precisely in charge of adapting these AI models to the needs of companies that want to implement them in their daily lives. And the data, what. There is another fundamental problem: medium-sized companies will not have much capacity to manage their data sovereignty. For Claude or GPT to function properly in the business, they will need access to critical workflows, medical records, or sensitive financial data. And when one cedes that control to third parties, they remain vulnerable. Not only that: the security of this data is compromised because in order to process it, it must leave and be processed in the cloud of an external provider. The AI ​​models of these companies can also probably learn from these processes, although it is reasonable to think that Zero Data Retention policies will come into play (“No data retention”). Image | TechCrunch | Wikimedia Commons In Xataka | The White House wants to review new AI models before anyone uses them: first the Pentagon, then the rest of the world

OpenAI expects an 80% drop in its flagship revenue. The low-cost “ChatGPT Go” is your escape forward

by

OpenAI is in trouble. More than beforeeven. In The Information indicate that internal projections for subscribers in 2026 are worrying. The users of ChatGPT Plustheir $20 a month plan, will fall from 44 million in 2025 to just 9 million this year. That represents a drop of 80%, and they want to compensate for it with their affordable subscription. It’s not clear that plan can work. ChatGPT Go as a lifesaver. What OpenAI is going to lose with ChatGPT Plus according to these internal forecasts, they want to counteract with an extraordinary increase in subscriptions to ChatGPT Gothe ad-supported plan that costs between $5 and $8. The company’s objective is for this plan to go from having the current 3 million subscribers to 112 million, an increase of 3,600% in twelve months. A terrible quarter. While The Information showed these forecasts, in The Wall Street Journal they informed OpenAI does not have the accounts in this first quarter of 2026. The company has not achieved the expected income, and has not achieved the user acquisition figure that it had projected. OpenAI CFO Sarah Frier has warned that the company may not be able to pay for its future computing contracts if revenue doesn’t start growing immediately. The accounts do not come out. OpenAI has contracted close to $600 billion in spending on future data centers, an astronomical figure that was built with all the announcements that Sam Altman and the company made in 2025. The company expects to spend $25 billion but plans to enter $30,000, a narrow margin even if everything goes well. But according to WSJ it is not doing so, and Anthropic’s popularity has eroded its position in the market. They wanted to reach 1 billion weekly active users by the end of 2025 and they didn’t achieve it, and the decision to bet on ChatGPT Go seems like a desperate response to their revenue problem… and their IPO. No one has ever grown so much. ChatGPT Go’s growth goal poses a colossal challenge. Achieving 109 million paying subscribers in twelve months is unprecedented. It took Facebook four years to get 100 million free users, and although ChatGPT achieved the same thing in two months and set a prodigious precedent, for this to be repeated for a paid subscription even extending the time frame to 12 months would be unusual. But not even for those. Analyst Ed Zitron point Because even if OpenAI achieved 112 million subscribers at $5/month on average, it would earn $560 million per month. That figure is a far cry from the $880 million per month generated by the 44 million Plus subscribers at $20/month. The difference should be covered with advertisingbut that doesn’t seem to be going as well as they expected either. Until have activated pay per click adssomething that already caused the credibility of SEO to be greatly damaged. We go public, yes or no? According to WSJ, Sarah Friar and Sam Altman disagree about whether it is advisable to go public this year given this change in the situation. Altman wants to speed it up, but Friar doesn’t think the company is ready to meet the data reporting obligations that public companies have. The problems accumulate because the financing round closed in March made OpenAI’s valuation amounted to 852,000 million dollars. If investors had known the situation of OpenAI’s first quarter, perhaps they would not have entered that round, or they would not have done so in such a notable way. The challenge of charging $20 for AI. OpenAI’s forecast is worrying. That a company that managed to popularize generative AI can only get 9 million people around the world to pay $20 a month is disturbing and says a lot about the state of the market. On the one hand, maybe people just don’t see that $20 worth it, which is bad for the entire industry. But perhaps what people don’t see is that those 20 dollars are not worth it if they spend them on ChatGPT and they do on competitors like Claude. That is even more worrying. It is clear that there is a segment of users willing to pay such a price, but today that segment is smaller than the expectation created suggested. The Pro plan will remain a rarity. OpenAI also has the Pro plan for $200 per month, and expects its subscribers there to also double in 2026. However, that will still not be almost anecdotal because less than 1% of the total number of users—the truly intensive ones—will opt for this alternative. It is evident that this will not be the core of OpenAI’s business at the moment, and the company seems to be clear about this. They prefer to leave the middle segment in the background, have a small premium segment and bet on massive volume at a low price with advertising. We’ve seen this before… with Netflix. OpenAI’s strategy reminds us of the one Netflix launched with its advertising plan. Which many criticized when it was announced has become in a overwhelming success. The company has returned us to square one: we want to pay to see adssomething surprising but it works. And OpenAI seems to want to apply the same story. In Xataka | The surprise with the new GPT 5.5 from OpenAI is not that it is good: it is that Claude looks like GPT and GPT looks like Claude

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.